Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co.
23-1226; 23-7751(L)
| 2d Cir. | Jul 29, 2025Background
- In 1969, Harper Lee granted The Dramatic Publishing Company (Dramatic) rights to develop and license a stage adaptation of "To Kill a Mockingbird" (the Sergel Play), with the exclusive right to non-first-class (amateur) performance rights.
- Decades later, Lee terminated the 1969 grant under 17 U.S.C. § 304(c) and executed a new grant in 2015, giving Rudinplay (now Atticus Limited Liability Company) rights to a new stage adaptation (the Sorkin Play).
- Dramatic filed arbitration against the Lee estate after Atticus claimed Dramatic had overstepped by licensing the Sergel Play for a professional UK tour; the arbitrator found Dramatic retained exclusive worldwide rights to non-first-class stage adaptations.
- Atticus (having acquired Rudinplay’s rights) filed suit in the Southern District of New York, seeking a declaratory judgment that performances of the Sorkin Play do not infringe any rights held by Dramatic after the 1969 grant’s termination.
- The district court sided with Atticus, granting declaratory relief, awarded partial attorney’s fees, and both parties appealed on the merits and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dramatic's exclusive rights survived termination | Dramatic’s exclusive license ended with termination; only retained rights to use its adaptation, not exclusivity | The derivative works exception preserves exclusivity even after termination | Dramatic’s exclusivity ended; only retains non-exclusive use of the Sergel Play |
| Validity of 2015 grant to Atticus/Rudinplay | Valid regardless of timing; irrelevant if Dramatic lacks exclusivity | Invalid because executed before effective termination date | Not controlling; scope of Dramatic’s rights is the dispositive question |
| Statute of limitations | Atticus’s claim is timely as it seeks to clarify infringement, not ownership | The claim is untimely because it is an ownership dispute accruing at the time of arbitration | Atticus’s claim is timely; not governed by ownership accrual rule |
| Application of res judicata (preclusion) | Atticus was not party to, nor in privity with parties to, prior arbitration | Atticus is bound by the prior arbitration and Illinois judgment | No preclusion; Atticus not bound by arbitration to which it was not party |
| Attorney’s fees | Full fee award justified; Dramatic’s conduct unreasonable | Unreasonable to award fees; arguments were permissible | Partial fee award affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded for reevaluation |
Key Cases Cited
- Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder, 469 U.S. 153 (1985) (interpreted the derivative works exception under the Copyright Act and addressed royalty rights following termination of a copyright grant)
- Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (1990) (discussed derivative works and rights after termination)
- Kwan v. Schlein, 634 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2011) (one-time accrual rule for copyright ownership claims)
- Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014) (separate accrual for each act of copyright infringement)
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (limits on nonparty preclusion and res judicata)
- Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publ’g Co., 240 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard for attorney’s fees in copyright cases)
- Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (factors guiding attorney’s fee awards in copyright litigation)
- John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. DRK Photo, 882 F.3d 394 (2d Cir. 2018) (distinction between exclusive and non-exclusive licensees in copyright infringement)